Vol. 1031 No. 6
111. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which he expects to be in a position to continue to implement the national development plan in all of its aspects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2350/23]
This question seeks to ascertain the extent to which the Minister can continue to assist in the delivery of the national development plan, in particular by identifying the possible stoppages or barriers to the progression thereof.
As Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I am responsible for the delivery of the national development plan, NDP, for setting the overall capital allocations across Departments and for monitoring monthly expenditure at departmental level. My Department is also responsible for maintaining the national frameworks within which Departments operate to ensure appropriate accounting for, and value for money in, public expenditure. Because of its vital importance for our country, "NDP delivery” is to be added to my Department’s title and mandate. My Department is currently examining the support structures and levers available across government in order to maximise delivery of vital infrastructure such as housing, schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.
As Deputy Durkan will be aware, we have made massive increases in public expenditure on capital projects in recent years. In 2023 it now stands at more than €12 billion, both from the Exchequer and from our semi-State sector. I want to look at the additional steps we need to translate that higher level of expenditure into real output for our society, which needs investment so badly. I am looking at how the change in the name of my Department can be turned into a changed mandate. I will be working on this. I am very interested in feedback from Oireachtas Members like Deputy Durkan with regard to those areas that need further change, and how we can have the right processes in place to ensure a higher level of Government expenditure leads into more housing, more skills and better public infrastructure.
To what extent will the Minister be able to reach out to the various major players who are in the course of delivering the NDP, or have a realistic contribution to make, with a view to identifying the problems they are facing? Is it possible for the Minister's Department to address the problems directly in such a way as to accelerate the rate of progress, which most commentators will readily say needs acceleration, particularly in view of the rapid increase in population?
I will shortly engage with the NDP national implementation board, particularly the outside representatives and experts on the board, to get their views on these issues. I have some initial views on those things we can do better on, and can improve on, to turn this higher level of expenditure into better output for our society. My first port of call will be to engage with the NDP management board to hear the views of different Government Departments and outside experts regarding what we can do differently and better. I aim to do this across the coming weeks. I am very much aware that if we want to turn the higher level of spending of the State for this year into even better outputs, the sooner we can make some changes the better.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. Can I further inquire whether, following the liaison with the various groups, he might be in a position to give instructions or to encourage an acceleration of the various aspects of the plan with a view to ensuring the targets are met within cost and on time?
I want to emphasise my view that the capital ceilings in place at the moment are very appropriate for this year. Changing the capital ceilings inside the budgetary year rarely leads to that money being spent in its entirety, and sometimes it can lead to other challenges regarding good value for the taxpayer. That being said, I aim to be in a position to give some guidance and instruction for how the delivery of our overall NDP can be implemented. I am aware of the frustration many people feel when we keep increasing spending that does not quite give the output everywhere that we want. I can see many good pieces of work under way, such as the school building programme with the Department of Education, the primary care centres and the new extension to the Mater Hospital in Eccles Street. I can see that kind of good work happening. I want to see how we can spread that practice more and more across the NDP.
112. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the actions he will take to ensure fewer cost overruns in major public works contracts going forward; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2280/23]
My question relates to cost overruns, which have been an issue for some time. What will the Minister do in his new role as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to ensure there are no cost overruns of major public works?
The Government has committed to €165 billion in capital investment through the NDP, as published in 2021. As a percentage of national income, annual capital investment is now among the largest in the European Union. In 2023, almost €12 billion will fund vital infrastructure in areas such as housing, transport, education, enterprise, sport and climate action. Achieving value for money and reducing cost and schedule overruns is a vital part of delivering the NDP.
My Department is responsible for the public spending code. I was the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when the last set of changes were made to that code. I hope the Deputy is aware that the majority of public investment projects are delivered on budget and on time. There is a high level of professionalism across sectors. However, noting the higher risk profile of larger projects, new procedures were required in order to improve project out-turns, to avoid cost overruns and to avoid delays to project delivery.
Responding to this need, my Department put in place the external assurance process, EAP, to provide independent scrutiny for major public capital projects. This involves independent expert reviews at two key stages in the project life cycle under the public spending code. The purpose of the EAP is to improve value for money and to support funding Departments with expert insight relating to project risks.
The major projects advisory group, MPAG, was also established by my Department. The MPAG allows us to better understand the outputs from the external reviews, and help with the decisions around major capital projects. For example, MPAG has now completed reviews of four major project proposals; BusConnects; MetroLink; Clonburris urban regeneration development fund spending; and elective care centres proposed for Cork and Galway.
The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Michael McGrath, prior to him becoming the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, stated that when it came to capital projects there was a clear pattern of projects costing more than the agreed contract price. He said that we need to know why so many projects end up costing taxpayers far more than planned. The Minister knows that when it comes to cost overruns on capital projects, we are largely in the dark. We are aware the cost overruns can arise a result of poor planning on the part of the contracting authority or the contractor, litigation arising from contractual disputes, poor performance in the management of risks, and so on. We do not know how such things impact on individual projects or in the aggregate. Will the Minister commit to begin the process of collecting this kind of data so we have a better overview?
I understand that a lot of this information is available for individual projects. I will certainly look at the point being made by the Deputy on how this can be better tracked in an overall fashion. I am aware, for example from challenges with the national children's hospital number of years ago, of the need for a refined public spending procedure for very large projects. I understand the need for that. I am very much aware that for some of our larger projects, a very high level of scrutiny is needed regarding how the country's money is spent. I will have a look at the role of the public spending code to ensure it continues to deliver the scrutiny we need for value for money. I will look at the Deputy's point on how we can aggregate information to see if we can gain any insight regarding common factors that could be slowing down the delivery of projects in the NDP.
I will bring forward legislation this year on the matter. I hope we can work constructively on that.
That legislation is designed to bring greater transparency and social value to public procurement. The Government's own recent White Paper on industrial policy stated that it wants to use public procurement in a strategic way. We will not be able to use the system in a strategic way unless we are gathering the data which would put us in a position to strategise. I would hope that we can work on that. If we are not using our public procurement in a strategic way for the benefit of everybody, we are not making the most of that money or that return.
I want to ask the Minister one last time about the controversies of the last week as it is my last opportunity. Did Michael Stone pay people to put up posters for the Minister in the 2020 general election?
As I said on the NDP, I want to look at what other improvements or changes we can put in place that get the balance right between the effective use of taxpayers' money and all the scrutiny that is needed for all projects, particularly larger capital projects.
On the Deputy's final point, on that and other matters I look forward to making a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.
113. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress that has been made in relation to flood risk management at Annagassan and Termonfeckin in County Louth; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2148/23]
I am asking for an update on flood risk management at Annagassan and Termonfeckin in County Louth. During the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, process there was no economically viable project. The Office of Public Works, OPW, was looking at a review of risk then, a scheme viability review, SVR. I am just wondering where that is. If possible, I would also like to get an update on the overall CFRAM situation as regards County Louth.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am delighted to be back as Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW. The Deputy has previously raised the issues at Annagassan and Termonfeckin.
The CFRAM programme was the largest ever flood risk study carried out in the State and covered 300 areas believed to be at significant flood risk. The programme culminated with the launch on 3 May 2018 of 29 flood risk management plans which proposed 118 different projects. A small number of additional schemes were found to be technically feasible but not economically viable at the time, with a benefit-cost ratio of less than one, based on the strategic level of assessment of the CFRAM studies. To better inform a decision on progressing schemes in these communities, measures were included in the flood risk management plans to undertake a review of the schemes' viability, called the scheme viability review, SVR. The OPW has put in place a process for undertaking these SVRs to determine whether a potential scheme should be taken forward to the full flood project stage. It should be noted it is neither the purpose nor the objective of the SVR to develop and design a scheme in preparation for planning. That is a separate process.
Annagassan and Termonfeckin were two such areas that fell into this category and a review of the flood risk in these communities and the likely associated costs and benefits is currently being undertaken. I can confirm that the Termonfeckin SVR was commenced by the OPW last year and technical assessment of the area is ongoing. The scheme viability report for this area is expected to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2023. Annagassan forms part of a group of SVRs being undertaken by consultants Arup, following a competitive tendering process late last year. The project commencement meeting was held on 9 January 2023 and site visits are scheduled for early February. A scheme viability report for Annagassan is expected by the end of the year. The scheme viability process for these communities involves ongoing liaison with Louth County Council. Once the outcome of the SVRs is known, the OPW will discuss the results with Louth County Council. I would like assure the Deputy and indeed all the Deputies from County Louth that every effort is being made to progress the SVRs in County Louth and indeed across the country in the quickest possible timeframe.
I appreciate the Minister of State's answer. What we are looking at in respect of Termonfeckin is that the report is due at the end of quarter 1 of this year, and we are talking about the end of the year for the report on Annagassan. We all accept the issues that have been brought about by climate change in the last while. We all know the dangers we face in respect of flood risk. It is an absolute necessity that we can protect our communities. I also accept that once the viability review report is done, there is another process in respect of the design of the project. We just need it all to happen as soon as possible given the circumstances we are in. If possible, could we get an overall update on CFRAM in County Louth, accepting the absolute necessity of those works that are planned for Dundalk, Blackrock, Drogheda, Carlingford, Greenore, Baltray and Ardee, securing all those communities in County Louth?
I think a Deputy has another question down later on this matter. If there is any information I cannot provide today, I will certainly come back to the Deputy in writing. He raises an important issue. We had statements yesterday on climate change. I listened to most of it in my own office. In fairness, some Deputies are very supportive of the work we are trying to do in the OPW around raising the issue of climate adaptation. As I have constantly said, if we all reduce our emissions to zero tomorrow morning, the issue of water levels rising in counties Louth, Galway, Limerick and Cork is going to continue. The single biggest physical threat to communities' viability and our ability to sustain communities in this country is from the sea. We need to address it with a greater sense of urgency and I would say we need to address it with a greater sense of political urgency. All parties and groups here have an obligation to support what we are trying to do and raise this to a different level. At the moment, talking about all of the electric cars and all the emissions in the world will not protect the communities the Deputy has referred to nor those Deputy Mairéad Farrell has referred to further down the questions list.
I accept that. We are in an incredibly precarious situation and we need to make sure all is done in respect of protecting our communities from flood risk and many other risks that are ahead of us in a changing world. As regards Annagassan and Termonfeckin, we need those processes to conclude within the timeline the Minister of State has spoken about and we must then ensure the other processes are in play. The Minister of State has been quite vociferous in public on planning issues that have impacted on projects like this. We are all aware of the AG review and other pieces of work that are being proposed by Government. Could the Minister of State give an update on the state of play and how he sees things progressing as regards being able to deliver these projects in a timely fashion, which is absolutely necessary to protect these communities?
I will allow Deputy Naughten to come in on this question.
I am grateful for the opportunity. Following on from that question on planning challenges, there is a blockage at the moment in respect of carrying out climate adaptation measures that impact on communities and on our environment. The blockage is Lough Funshinagh in County Roscommon which the Minister of State has visited. Has he engaged or spoken with the Minister with responsibility for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, about visiting and seeing the situation in Lough Funshinagh and trying to undo this blockage for all communities across the country that are dependent on these works?
To take Deputy Naughten's question first, "yes" is the simple answer and "I do not know" is the other part of the answer. We have engaged with the NPWS. We cannot talk about Lough Funshinagh without talking about the special area of conservation. The first of the climate migrants in County Roscommon have left their homes. People talked about climate migration in this Dáil yesterday like something that was just happening in the northern Sahara. It is happening in our own country.
To go back to Deputy Ó Murchú's point, I would prefer if the language could change around this issue, moving away from flood risk to talk about climate adaptation. The processes we are facing at the moment are incredibly tortuous. We will need all Deputies' help when the planning Bill comes before the Dáil. That Bill is not my responsibility but I certainly will be throwing my eye over it in the hope that it will address some of the stuff we have had to deal with in the last number of years where a person in County Donegal can object to something in County Wexford; all this erroneous sort of stuff needs to be done away with. The strategic infrastructure that Deputy Mairéad Farrell questioned the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, about a while ago will just become pie in the sky if we do not address the fundamentals around this. We all have an obligation in that.
114. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he will publish legislation informed by the recent review of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2205/23]
126. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide an update on the review of the workings of the Freedom of Information Act 2014. [1601/23]
I am seeking an update on when the Minister plans to publish legislation informed by the review of the Freedom of Information Act that was initiated back in September 2021. We are a year and a half out from the commencement of that review and we have yet to see a draft Bill. The then Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, indicated to me late last year that the review was at an advanced stage and would be concluded in early 2023.
We would appreciate an update on progress, therefore.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 114 and 126 together.
I thank the Deputies for giving me the opportunity to address the review of the Act. I want to acknowledge the work that has been put into this project by the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath. Under his guidance, an update setting out the current position in the review was brought to Government and subsequently issued to stakeholders and published late last year. Given the breadth and complexity of the issues involved, it is envisaged that the review will be completed and the report brought to Government for approval in the first quarter of the year.
My Department is continuing its engagement with key stakeholders in the public sector on draft preliminary recommendations. I expect shortly to be presented with final findings and recommendations in the form of a draft review report. In turn, I expect to present the review report to Government for approval and publication before the end of the first quarter of this year. At that point, subject to Government approval, amending legislation will be tabled if required and an implementation plan will commence.
As Deputy Nash is aware, we have received 1,200 submissions in the consultation phases and we received a further 1,100 returns to a customer satisfaction survey. I thank all who gave their time in this process.
In the open review and the general review after that there were a total of about 2,400 responses received. That is an indication of the public interest in freedom of information, FOI, legislation and greater moves towards transparency. The Minister will accept that the FOI system needs to be modernised. Would he agree as well that the default position of Government Departments and agencies should be to publish online and make available to the public as much information as possible, outside of personal information? That has been the cornerstone of the campaign run by organisations like Right to Know and I would advocate that the default position should be to publish as much information as possible. As part of that review and any new legislation that might be introduced, is the Minister considering, for example, reducing or abolishing the fees for retrieval of information? The fees can act as a deterrent for citizens who are seeking to access important information.
I understand that it is possible to submit FOI and general data protection regulation, GDPR, requests verbally under the legislation. Can the Minister explain that process to me? Can the Minister explain to me where the line is drawn between professional and private records from a ministerial perspective under the FOI legislation? For example, could I ask the Minister for copies of emails, texts and WhatsApp messages relating to his non-disclosure of a donation that was made to him by Michael Stone and the communications he has had with the Taoiseach on this issue under the Freedom of Information Act 2014? The Minister might discuss that. I ask him also to consider this to be a verbal FOI request to him and his Department on all of that information.
Freedom of information is a tool of transparency that is used to make sure politicians do their jobs according to their citizens' needs and not according to the needs of big business etc. We have a history in this country of business buying influence in terms of politicians and we need to make sure we have a transparent system so that does not happen again.
I was not aware of the option to make oral FOI requests but I am familiar with the operation of the legislation. As the Deputy will know, Ministers do not play a role in determining what information goes out. On the access that FOI legislation has to the records of a Minister, there should be nothing in your private communication that refers to Government business. My phone and any electronic device I have are subject to FOI legislation and I am careful to use official communication channels for Government business and only for Government business.
On the points that were made by Deputy Nash, I am aware of the importance of this legislation and what a fundamental role it plays in providing openness to our society. On the Deputy's point on what information should be made available, in a default way and publicly there is a balance between allowing Government Departments to do their work in a deliberative process while recognising private security and data privacy, and also making an appropriate amount of information available publicly and digitally on a regular basis. For example, the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform get that balance right.
The Minister is right that the deliberative process is important but far too often we see peculiar responses coming from Government Departments where they are hiding behind the deliberative process and where there is no reason in this wide world why they should not be more open. It depends on the particular request made but there is far too liberal use of the black marker and there are some extraordinary circumstances that are not justified. I hope the review will be conscious of that.
There are many additional bodies that are heavily funded by the State but that are not under the remit of FOI and I urge the Minister to consider that in the context of his review of the development of legislation. In the middle of this year it will have been two years since the review started. It is quite likely now that it will be 2024 or late this year before we will see draft heads of a Bill. We need to move with greater pace to reform the FOI system. Information is key and it is a fast-moving world we are living in. We need to modernise our system and we need to do that urgently.
I would like the Minister to look into the issue of verbal FOI requests and to consider what I requested in my last contribution as an official FOI request. A Minister who is in charge of standards in public ethics should be the engine of transparency in terms of ethics in the public sphere. Everybody knows that too often we see that procedure and the FOI system itself can be used to hide things. For example, my office has put in FOI requests to the Department of Health and the HSE. The Department of Health will come back to me and say it does not have any correspondence on that subject in the given timeframe and then the HSE will come back to me and give me the correspondence with the Department of Health on that subject in the given timeframe. What recourse do I or any other citizen in this country have to chase up when we have the public system not being open with citizens?
The public system is open to citizens.
I have given the Minister examples.
As I said, I am not aware of the ability for FOI requests to be granted and issued orally but I accept that the Deputy is raising important matters on governance, transparency and standards in public life. To go back to the FOI request that is at the heart of this parliamentary question, as I have said, this is an Act that works well. I heard Deputy Nash refer to the black marker and I want to reaffirm to the House that the black marker is not wielded by Ministers when it comes to FOI requests that come in about them. That is decided by others. However, what we will be doing is continuing to assess the FOI legislation. As I said, we have received a variety of different submissions. I will be giving that consideration and seeing if amendments, improvements or changes to the scheme are needed.
116. Deputy Brian Leddin asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will consider developing a scheme, separate to grants provided by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to support home help, home care and domiciliary carers who are car-dependent due to their work to purchase electric vehicles in order to support this sector and contribute to the Government’s climate goals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2437/23]
Assuming the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, takes the question, I want to congratulate him on his new role and his return to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, a Department he knows well. I wish to ask the Minister if he will consider developing a scheme, separate to grants provided by SEAI, to support home help, home care and domiciliary carers who are car-dependent due to their work, to purchase electric vehicles in order to support this sector and contribute to the Government's climate goals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for his question, which touches on two important issues; the need to maintain adequate provision of care in the community and the need to increase significantly the uptake of environmentally friendly modes of transport that will help decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. As the Deputy will appreciate, consideration of targeted supports for specific categories of workers is a matter for the Department with the relevant policy responsibility. In the first instance I can confirm that no scheme of this kind is being developed within my Department, nor are there plans to do so.
Responsibility for the kind of issue to which the Deputy has referred would sit within the parent Department. However, his question does illustrate the challenges and opportunities that exist in an era when policymaking increasingly needs to satisfy the twin objectives of improving public services and helping to achieve our climate goals. This will demand greater collaboration and co-operation between relevant Departments and Government agencies to generate the evidence to underpin these types of cross-cutting policies, including robust estimation of the incremental costs and incremental impact of any new measures, both in terms of public service delivery and climate outcomes, such as the transport emission reductions referred to in the Deputy’s question.
I acknowledge the Minister's answer. When I was seeking to direct the question I struggled somewhat, because certainly, on the face of it it does appear to be a question that would fall perhaps primarily within the remit of the Department of Transport, but as the Minister has acknowledged, it is a cross-cutting matter. Indeed, it is an all-of-government matter. Were the Government to devise such a scheme that would help this sector, it would influence the social and economic health of this country as much as the environmental well-being of the country and the planet as well. I put the question to the Minister as a starting point. I think it is important to put the issue on his radar. I will seek to pursue it with other Departments as well. I must say that this is a sector that is particularly deserving of Government support to purchase EVs. The workers in the sector are car-dependent and through no fault of their own, they are responsible for high mileage and high emissions. Of course, they are also a low-paid sector as well.
I very much take the Deputy's point. Through my membership of the Cabinet committee on environment and climate change and in my role as Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, I want to support a lot of the work that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has on the way. As Deputy Leddin is aware, there are some very positive signs. We know that electric car sales rose 81% year on year in 2022, accounting for 15% of all new car registrations last year. We can see many examples now across our economy and society of the kind of change that we need to accelerate our ability to decarbonise our economy. The specific matter that the Deputy has raised regarding home help, home care and domiciliary carers who are car-dependent is, as I hope the Deputy will appreciate, a very specific matter for the Department of Health. However, I will continue to look at the work it is doing in that area. If there is anything at all relevant to the theme that the Deputy is raising, I will ensure that I share it with him.
As the Minister has acknowledged, the issue is something that should be on the Minister for Health's desk as well. There is a huge challenge in the recruitment of healthcare workers, particularly at this end of the sector. The scheme might be something that the Government could consider to attract people into the sector. Many of these workers are rurally-based, and that is why they are car-dependent. It certainly would help a cohort of Irish society that does not have an alternative to driving. I would not expect these workers to be using public transport or active travel. They are utterly car-dependent. There is precedent, of course, in policy in that we support taxi drivers to the tune of €36,000 to purchase EVs. I think as strong a case can be made for this particular sector.
I take the Deputy's point. I know how hugely important these workers are to our society. However, as I said, it is an area that is fundamental to the work that the Department of Health does. If any proposals are shared with me that look at the matter that the Deputy has raised, I will certainly keep in mind his observations. I look forward to updating him on any progress that is made on it.
117. Deputy James O'Connor asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the criteria which are applied for promotion relating to interdepartmental staff in the civil service; if any concerns have been identified for interdepartmental staff promotions within the civil service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2275/23]
I want to raise the issue of interdepartmental staff promotions within the Civil Service. Have concerns been raised before, perhaps by trade unions or staff themselves, with the Minister's Department around the lack of interdepartmental staff that are given promotional opportunities? It is an issue that has been raised with me by a number of constituents who are concerned about it. Perhaps it is something that could be looked at by the Department.
The Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 provides the regulatory framework for recruitment and selection that all civil and public service employers are required to adhere to. It provided for the establishment of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, CPSA, as the independent regulator for appointments made under the Act; the Public Appointments Service, PAS, as the centralised recruitment, assessment and selection body for the Civil Service; and for other public service bodies, where requested. In line with its statutory remit, the CPSA has published codes of practice on its website to ensure that standards of probity, merit, equity and fairness apply to recruitment selection processes undertaken by employers for appointments to the civil and public service made under the Act.
In relation to the specific issue of promotional opportunities for existing civil servants, they may be eligible to compete in internal competitions, which are confined to their own Civil Service Department or office, as well as interdepartmental competitions, which are open to existing eligible civil servants across all Departments and offices. There are a number of general criteria that apply to interdepartmental competitions for promotion in the Civil Service in relation to grading, number of years' service, the rating of the employee and suitability in terms of work performance and general conduct. No concerns around interdepartmental staff promotions within the Civil Service have been brought to the attention of officials in my Department. More generally, the CPSA accepts complaints from candidates where there are concerns that competitions were not conducted according to the Public Service Management Act 2004 and the relevant CPSA codes of practice. I am not aware of the issue being raised with the CPSA. More generally, the Deputy's concerns have not been raised with my Department at official level. I am sure if the Deputy has specific concerns, he will raise them here with me.
I thank the Minister for the very detailed response. I appreciate and understand that due to the very sensitive nature of the matter, such a response was going to be issued in reply to my question. However, I have to give my own perspective from what I have heard from people who have brought the issue to my attention. Upon looking at the individual cases without naming or going into facet of the Civil Service, I did find it a bit peculiar in relation to the issues that were raised with me. I think it would be a prudent move for the Minister, in his new Department, to take a look at the issue. I believe it has been raised in the past be Deputy Shortall in the Dáil in a parliamentary question. From my perspective, it is about bringing a degree of clarity to the situation. Obviously, people in jobs do not like to make complaints. The Minister and I both know that. It creates a culture that may disadvantage an employee in terms of their relationship with their superiors. That must be said in reply. If the Minister could commit to checking it out, I would deeply appreciate it. I wish him well in his new role.
I certainly will check it out. I have seen so many good examples of mobility within the Civil Service in recent years and I know of the positive role that it can play. I would certainly be interested in understanding any limitations or issues regarding its operation. As I said to the Deputy in answering his question, I am not aware of any concerns at the moment, nor have they been raised with me. As ever, if he has any specific matters that he wants to raise after this, I ask him to let me know so that I can follow up on them generally, because this is an important part of how our Civil Service operates and I am very eager to see it continue to function well in the time ahead.
118. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide an update on the selection of a contractor for the Glashaboy flood relief scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2162/23]
135. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the current position of the Glashaboy flood relief scheme; when work will commence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1915/23]
I want to raise the issue of the Glashaboy flood relief scheme. As the Minister of State is aware, it went out for tender over 12 months ago and tenders were submitted. Unfortunately, the contractor who was awarded the contract was not able to do the work on the basis of the price quoted and the timescale set out in the tender that was submitted. Where are we now in relation to that? It was re-advertised and new tenders were submitted.
Has a contractor been appointed? When is the work likely to commence? What is the completion date for carrying out that work?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 118 and 135 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for his continued interest in alleviating the problems in the Glanmire area.
I am advised that the Glashaboy river flood relief scheme is being progressed by Cork City Council. The OPW, in partnership with Cork City Council, is engaging proactively to progress the flood relief scheme for Glanmire.
The scheme was confirmed in January 2021 by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform under the Arterial Drainage Acts, 1945 to 1995, and is being funded from the OPW's €1.3 billion allocation under flood relief measures in the NDP and as part of Project Ireland 2040.
Tender documentation for the procurement and appointment of a contractor was issued in September 2021 with a return date of 24 January 2022 but, unfortunately, Cork City Council, which is the contracting authority in this case, was not in a position to appoint a contractor for the works on foot of this procurement process due to the inflationary market that arose during the evaluation and assessment period.
The council was hoping that the tender for the contractor would issue before the end of last year. A review of the commercial risks associated with the tender documentation involved some additional technical assessment prior to issuing the tender documentation. I have now been informed that the council is proceeding towards issuing tender documents by the end of this month.
Following the appointment of a civil works contractor, works are scheduled to commence in quarter 2 of this year. The key project partners are working to minimise the overall delay in the completion of these works recognising the significance of the issue for the people in the Glanmire area and the associated housing developments and businesses.
When this flooding occurred, which was more than ten years ago, houses had up to 4 ft of water in them. People have been living in fear in that area since then.
I am a little concerned that the tender documentation has still not been finalised. The question is about the time period for submissions to be made once that becomes available and then the important issue of the contractor being contacted and awarded the contract. There was too much of a delay the last time around. Tenders were submitted and acceptance was acknowledged. The contractor that was awarded the contract was written to. Can there be clear guidelines that once the tender documents are agreed and made available and advertised and the tenders are received, a decision is taken within a short period in order that we can get on with this contract and remove the fear that currently exists in the Glanmire area? This is important. It is a residential area. The flooding affects the entire population of Glanmire with people not being able to access schools and work. I ask that the scheme be prioritised and that time periods be clearly set out.
From the point of view of the OPW, which is the funding authority, this is being prioritised. In any engagement I have had with the CEO of Cork City Council, this has been to the fore in our discussions. I am due to visit Cork again shortly.
I recognise that this is not an insignificant scheme. A total of 103 properties are being defended, which are a mixture of personal and business. It will take up to 24 months to finish the construction but in the period since the previous tendering process stopped and this one was initiated, it has not been that Cork City Council and the OPW have been doing nothing. We have used that period to make sure any potential issues that arise during the construction phase will be minimised.
It is regrettable, though, that some people have used what was an unprecedented inflationary environment during which tenders had to be withdrawn for political purposes. Some people, for instance, started a postcard campaign and tried to create the impression that this was not a priority or, indeed, was not being progressed by Cork City Council or the OPW. That is erroneous. It is not fair to the people who are doing it. It is not fair to our engineers, the outdoor staff of the council, the OPW or anybody who wants to get this done. It is particularly unfair to the communities of Glanmire, Glashaboy, Meadowlands and all those areas who want this built to see somebody come in and try to politically capture and make hay out of this issue, which is grossly unfair.
I acknowledge both the Minister of State and his Department and, indeed, Cork City Council for the work they have done. It needs to be ensured timelines are clearly set out in order that we can get on with it. I appreciate the work that has been done to date. It is unfortunate that inflation caught up with the council when the first round of the project was first advertised for tenders to be submitted. It needs to be given priority now, as it has been two years. It should be awarded hopefully within the next two to three months so that the council can get on with the project.
Nobody could have anticipated the inflationary environment in which the OPW and the council found ourselves. While it was a huge disappointment that the contractor withdrew from the contract, was it a surprise given that construction inflation was probably running of the order of 20% or 30% or whatever percentage it was at the time? It has eased considerably and at least we are now in a stable environment.
This is not an issue about money. Some people are trying to portray that politically but it is not. If we did not follow the procurement rules that are laid out by the Office of Government Procurement, and if Cork City Council, as the tendering authority, did not follow those, I would have an entirely different set of questions to be answerable to the House on today.
We are committed to this scheme and the money is in place. It will take approximately 24 months to build it. It is one of the priorities for the OPW because we recognise the risk. It also a key priority for Cork City Council. I thank the Deputy for his interest in it because I am aware of the suffering of the people in that area. Some of them are from my own part of the world. They have been constantly engaged with me and they recognise the efforts that have been made by local representatives. Again, however, I reiterate my appeal to politicians not to play politics with something so sensitive as people's fears around water coming through their front doors. It is grossly unfair.
119. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total underspend of capital across all Departments, including capital allocations deferred to 2023; the steps that he intends on taking to ensure that the total capital allocation in this year’s Revised Estimates Volume is expended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1372/23]
This question relates to the underspend of capital across all Departments. I want included in the figure capital allocations deferred to 2023. It is important once money is provided that it is spent. If it is not spent, it means that houses, transport infrastructure and roads, hospitals and whatever are not built. The Minister might give me the details of it and tell me which Departments are the worst offenders.
As the Deputy will be aware, my Department is responsible for the allocation of public funds across each area of government spending and seeks to ensure that expenditure is managed by Departments in line with these allocations. Those allocations are laid out in the NDP.
To answer the Deputy's questions, the Fiscal Monitor for December 2022 recorded gross capital expenditure of more than €10.9 billion, which was €569 million behind the full 2022 capital expenditure allocation of almost €11.5 billion, including Supplementary Estimates. The answer to the Deputy's question overall is that it was €569 million below planned spending.
The expenditure figure of €10.9 billion includes a capital carryover into 2023 of €687 million, which was the second part of the Deputy’s question. If we were to exclude that and include the carryover of €789 million from 2021 that was spent in 2022, the gross total spend in 2022 was just over €11 billion. I will check when the Deputy responds with his next question whether I have the figures by Department as well.
If I understand correctly, between deferred capital at the end of the year, when the Minister allocated the money in 2021 for 2022 and 2023, he knew about the carryovers in each case. He is telling me, in fact, if I understand correctly, that the total is approximately €1.2 billion between carryovers and underspend at the Department.
I keep thinking of all the services urgently needed in this country that have not happened. This is my question. From the global perspective of the Minister's Department, what is he going to do to make sure this does not happen repeatedly? It seems crazy to allocate money and not spend it. That suggests three possibilities. The first is to allow more projects into the pipeline because they take longer now than they used to, the second is to examine the public procurement process and the third is to examine the public spending guidelines to see if the Minister could apply the same due diligence with less time, fewer steps and more parallel steps.
They are options I am willing to look at. We have capital carryovers in place every year. I take the Deputy's point that when the need for new homes and Garda stations to be built and more investment is so great, it is frustrating for Deputies to see significant capital underspends in Departments.
The Deputy has asked for the overall figures. The vast majority of Departments have capital spend drawdown for the year of between 95% and 100%. There are a number of Departments in which that is not the case. The reasons for that is well known. It is because of challenges that are there. Housing is at 93% and social protection is at 93%. Those figures are the drawdown of the total capital budget. The finance group is at 90% and foreign affairs is at 69%. The reason for much of that is the difficulties with delivery of capital projects in an inflationary environment and the changes and difficulties we have had in the aftermath of Covid. I will look at the options the Deputy raised because, given the level of social need, I want to see every cent of capital budgets being spent in any given year.
I remember when carryovers were introduced. I had serious reservations because I felt they would become endemic in the system. In the public sector system, once a thing like that is opened up, they think that is part of what you do. You only spend a certain amount and carry over up to 20% or whatever you are allowed to carry over. One of my colleagues is smiling because the older heads around here know that is the sort of thing that happens in the system.
I accept the difficulties with planning and delays. My attitude has always been to put more projects on the conveyor belt, put them on earlier, anticipate these things and make sure at the end. The Minister knows it is easy to control capital - it is not like current - and ensure a full spend without overspending or bursting the budget. Will the Minister look at allowing more into the pipeline, reforming public procurement and reforming the public spending code, which has too many linear steps in it, rather than parallel steps?
I cannot give an indication that I will agree to more projects coming into the pipeline because that would be an overall Government decision of significance. I am not yet confident that our capital ceilings for the year will allow that to happen but I will look at it in relation to the other two issues the Deputy raised. There are issues with public procurement and the public spending code related to the underspends we have.
I know the Deputy will be aware, given his huge experience, that the absence of carryovers meant Departments unable to spend their capital projects for good reasons sometimes lost all their funding and were not in a position to carry over and continue with projects year by year. Capital carryovers play a valuable role but I accept the general point that we need to look at why underspends are happening and see what we can do to minimise them.
120. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total additional cost to the Exchequer in 2022 of the inflation co-operation framework in respect of the delivery of projects under public works projects; if the framework will be reviewed in 2023; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2206/23]
I raise the operation of the inflation co-operation framework, an important innovation introduced by Government last year to assist contractors carrying out NDP projects and, more generally, capital projects with rising inflation in terms of energy and materials. Will the Minister of State give an update on the additional cost of that and if the framework will be reviewed in 2023?
The objective of the inflation-supply chain delay co-operation framework is to safeguard public projects that were under construction or tendered in advance of the onset of the exceptional inflation in the price of construction materials, fuel and electricity.
The framework facilitates both parties to a public works contract to engage with one another to address the impacts of exceptional inflation and supply chain disruption and operates on an ex gratia basis. The framework sets down the approaches and parameters within which parties to the contract may calculate additional costs attributable to material and fuel price fluctuations on an ongoing basis using price indices published by the Central Statistics Office.
The measures available under the framework strike an important balance between the additional costs incurred by the State to support contractors engaged on public projects and the State’s ability to deliver the NDP, including housing delivery, while providing value for money for the taxpayer.
The feedback received by my Department suggests that the parties are engaging and that agreements have been entered into for a substantial number of projects. While payments covering the cost of inflation are made monthly, once formal agreement is reached, the total additional cost attributed to inflation for each project will not be known until it is completed. The measures introduced are intended to operate until completion or until they are no longer required. Any increase attributed to inflation may be shared between the parties with the State bearing up to 70% of the additional cost. Any additional costs identified are to be met from within the capital ceiling allocations for each approving authority.
Information on costs is not collated centrally. Management and delivery of capital projects and programmes are a matter for the sponsoring agency and approving authority in each case. Similar to any process of Vote management, it will be the responsibility of sectors and accounting officers to assess whether existing timelines for the implementation of key projects will need to be adjusted on account of the framework implementation or if there will be a need for prioritisation within their existing five-year departmental ceilings.
Does the Minister of State have a figure for the additional cost across government given the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has been renamed the Department for the delivery of the NDP, as well as having special responsibility in that regard? What is the additional cost, outside of what was agreed? The responsibility lies 70:30 in favour of the State. It is important to put on the record the additional cost involved. There is no doubt this was an important innovation. The difficulties contractors found themselves in last year were extraordinary. I looked at the figures earlier for construction price inflation. The cost of structural steel increased by 64.1% early last year and that maintained throughout the year. There was a 46.3% increase in rough timber. The problem is clear.
As the Deputy said, we looked at fuel price inflation, as well as at materials, the dramatic increases in construction prices, material inflation and supply chain disruption. In many cases, builders could not get the materials required.
We are not centrally collating the increase in the cost of these contracts. We have said each contracting authority is responsible for paying for its own increase out of its existing allocated budget so there is not an overall increase in the budget across government. We do not have a centrally collated number for that. Risk sharing is required. We have not said the State will take on 100% of the cost but 70%. That is because there has to be risk sharing. If we had not done this, major capital projects, including social housing projects, could not have been completed. We would have had to retender and the State would have paid more the second time around for the tender to be completed.
I find it extraordinary that neither the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform or the Office of Government Procurement is collating those figures centrally. It would be an important public policy measure that the Department would collate all the figures from the relevant agencies and spending Departments, at least to inform a review of the operation of the framework in 2023. This is about making sure the projects we depend on for the development of the economy and society are delivering but also, crucially, about value for money. The Minister of State mentioned value for money in his response and I cannot say with certainty that such value is being prioritised if the Department is not prioritising the collation of the relevant information to inform any review that might take place this year and to ensure the State is not being taken for granted by some rogue contractors.
The important principle is that the contracting authorities are responsible for their own budgets and responses. The Accounting Officer in each case is responsible for monitoring its own expenditure. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform does not operate as a monitoring agency at a micro-management level to make sure that each contracting authority operates within its own budget. Each has a set budget on which there are ceilings and they have to operate within them. However, they are delegated the power to spend the money that has been allocated. Overall, this has been a successful and practical implementation of public procurement and has resulted in projects that would otherwise have been cancelled and would not have been completed within budget.
